Eyes on the Prize

Well, every time I recommend a diary with which I agree it feels (0.00 / 0)

like self-aggrandizement.  I suspect it's not something real self-aggrandizers worry about.

I've been puzzling lately how it is that envy or jealousy turn to hate or wrath.  I think it happens when what are basically emotion-driven attitudes are frustrated.  So, if sloth is the saving-grace of the instinct-driven, wrath may well be the road to damnation.  

On the other hand, perhaps purgatory was invented as a place to send disruptive, unthinking people.

The adulation of Sarah is not a good thing, either for her or the idolaters.

---

by: hannah @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 06:50:22 AM CDT

It seems to me (0.00 / 0)

that this comes down to when the focus should be on what is good for the community vs. what benefits one individual.  We run into this all the time in our towns, for example:  hate land use regs because they interfere with me doing whatever I want with my land, but then want to control what my neighbor does with her land because it impacts me.  It's a whole different mindset.
(And I will be glad when I no longer have to blog on an iPhone!)

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:14:37 AM CDT

Very interesting (4.00 / 2)

Thanks for sharing Dean. The kudos are well deserved.

He's smart, that Caulfield guy ... and the Shirky piece he links to is interesting too.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 10:43:19 AM CDT

This does not seem like a good formulation to me (4.00 / 1)

As someone who was recently banned from another site for a pretty obviously non-legit reason (RedHampshire, which I was banned from in retribution for pointing out here on BH that RedHampshire is owned by a DC-based publishing company) I do not think that it's a good idea to respond to an accusation that BH is a dictatorship by beginning to use the language of dictatorships ("enemy of the group", necessary government, overriding obligations to the group above the individual.)

"...the site isn't there to serve you..." - now that makes sense to me.  But it seems to me enough to say that the purpose of moderating the site is effective moderation, period; that it's not for the individual users, it's not to enact some perfect fairness and justice or provide a service like the courts to settle disputes.

Effective moderation inhibits disruption of the site and cultivates discussion and content creation that aligns with a desired atmosphere of the site and it may do so in a way that isn't always fair to individuals.  An individual just might not be able to say what they want to say right now, in a particular thread; he or she might have to wait until another time or perhaps go off and start another thread.

In some instances there might be opinions or viewpoints that can't be expressed, though personally I think that the number of those should be vanishingly small.  Sometimes there might even be topics that should be discussed, ones very much in alignment with the theme of the site, but the discussion gets interdicted because the topic can't be delved into without extensive disruption of the site.

After having been a member of quite a few online communities, some with effective moderation and some with ineffective moderation, sometimes with moderation that works in one situation but not another, that's the way I think that it ought to be.  The mods should be able to treat people in a basically and generally fair way but should be able to say "sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles" sometimes and exert whatever control they need to to keep things running smoothly and not spinning out of control.  And sometimes that means being unfair, sometimes even accidentally unfair due to a mod not seeing his or her own bias, but the mod can apologize later (and hopefully any users involved apologize too) and everything keeps going because The Conversation Must Flow.

Pretending that there is a coherent community will and spirit, or a gestalt entity that all users comprise, and that the mods are simply selflessly serving that greater good and always doing things in its interest, seems overwrought to me.  You can talk about the community in general terms but I don't think any aspect of it is concrete enough or invariable enough to effectively justify specific actions and it's going to sound a bit affected and pompous to outsiders and new members.

So I think overall it's best to boil it all down to a simple metric, albeit qualitative instead of quantitative, to evaluate any particular mod action by: "Is this what an effective mod would do, here or on any site?"

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 19:33:09 PM CDT

"necessary government" is dictatorship language?? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 19:40:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When you're talking about an online community I think so (0.00 / 0)

It seems to me that it's the same sort of rationale that enables the governing of things that in a real world are really no one's business to be governing (like what you and your partner do in your bedroom for example or what you read or who you publicly assemble with) by saying that governing such things is necessary for the common good.

The management of an online community is desirable in lots of ways (and the alternative to managing it usually results in a dull or not particularly useful site) and it's well within the purview of the site's founders / owners to do that but it doesn't quite rise to the level of necessity in my view.

In the same way I think that many if not most of the things that in the real world we do for the common good we're not doing out of necessity but because we choose to do them democratically or by societal consensus.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 19:54:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Complying with the law I guess (0.00 / 0)

Now that I think about it there probably is one category of mod actions that qualifies as being absolutely necessary, for the site's continued existence: actions that ensure the site complies with the law so it doesn't get shut down, like removing copyrighted material that isn't fair use or removing comments that would be libelous or illegally defamatory.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 20:09:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Another note (0.00 / 0)

Part of the reason I think this way is that I'm the kind of person who, when I believe I'm right, will say almost anything no matter how provocative or ruthlessly critical of other users.  But I've seen over the years that even when I am right there are still things that a mod can't let me say, and I would do the same thing in their position.

(I still say those kind of things, I just don't take it personally if they get deleted or if a mod comes along and lays down the law. ;^)

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 19:42:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is not a bad thing that BH is a dictatorship (4.00 / 1)

There are some interesting ideas floating around in Mike Caulfield's post, and even more in Shirky's work.  But I think Mr. Caulfield's post is in the neighborhood of correct, rather than being spot on.

Shirky's article was interesting, I should read more of that.  But as it applies to BH, I think it's clear that control here lies with the 4 editors. It's not a bad thing, and they largely do a good job. But it is not the same as control lying with a group even as small as the "core users", and it is certainly not a democracy of all contributors, or even a weighted democracy.

I'd suggest that it's a self-regulating dictatorship, though. If our editors get too far off the mark, their contributors and their readers will slowly but inevitably disappear. But their lordships can waver off the straight path here and there with few consequences. (Not that they do, just that they can.) It is, to paraphrase Shirky, both the nature of the software, and the nature of this group.

Given the time and effort Dean et.al. put in, this is not something i begrudge. Beside which, their moderation is simply well done.

---

by: kite @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 20:39:56 PM CDT

I agree that it can be a dictatorship if desired (0.00 / 0)

What I described above is more what in my observation causes the least rancor both on and off-site, but if the people running the site choose for it to be a dictatorship that's fine with me.  I'm not sure I agree with you that BH is quite like a dictatorship, but if that's the concept it really ought to say that when you sign up otherwise content contributors will probably expect a different deal.

Or, if there are the goals as in Mike's article such as the site is here "to get more Democrats elected" and you can be banned for interfering with those group interests that also ought to be mentioned when you sign up.  I could certainly understand though if a lengthy discussion of criticism of a candidate needed to go into its own thread rather than remaining with campaign announcements (I don't know if that actually happens, just an example), but that's still something it would be nice to know up front too.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 21:41:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]